How Can A Person Reject Infallible Dogma/Theology and Claim to Believe in Jesus?

[chosenone]

The Pope is in direct succession in lineage from the Twelve Apostles as according to the Holy Bible.

The pope has nothing to do with Peter.

[Jimmy]

The Pope is in direct succession in lineage from the Twelve Apostles as according to the Holy Bible.

Good luck with that one.

[DaveW]

Moving beyond the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, we find that St.Paul provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Neo:

You should realize that the "sacred traditions" he was writing about that he had to teach to the gentile congregations were FROM JUDAISM.  These were not new things that he came up with, they had been around for a century or more.  If you study out the traditions of 2nd temple era Judaism you will see what I mean.

[Selene]

Moving beyond the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, we find that St.Paul provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Neo:

You should realize that the "sacred traditions" he was writing about that he had to teach to the gentile congregations were FROM JUDAISM.  These were not new things that he came up with, they had been around for a century or more.  If you study out the traditions of 2nd temple era Judaism you will see what I mean.

Actually, the sacred traditions is not from judaism.  It is from the Holy Spirit.  The scripture that the Apostles teach from is from the Old Testament because some of the New Testament books were not written yet. 

[DaveW]

Actually, the sacred traditions is not from Judaism.  It is from the Holy Spirit. 

Actually, the tradition Paul wrote about in those scriptures WAS from Judaism.  It was ALSO from the Holy Spirit.  There is no conflict there at all.

What you have NOW is not from Judaism .  It was changed following the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 ad in order to avoid Roman persecution of the Jews.  In my opinion, when they changed it away from Judaism they also changed it away from the Holy Spirit.

The scripture that the Apostles teach from is from the Old Testament because some of the New Testament books were not written yet.

Agreed but off topic.

[neophyte]

Dave W, The term Jew is used in at least two senses in Scripture: to refer to those who are ethnically Jews and to those who are religiously Jews. Jesus was a Jew in both senses. In fact, he completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold.

The completed form of the Jewish religion is known as Christianity, and its adherents are Christians or "followers of the Christ." Unfortunately, many people who were ethnically Jewish did not recognize Jesus' role as Messiah and so did not accept Christianity, the completed form of Judaism. Instead, they stayed with a partial, incomplete form of Judaism. Other Jews (the apostles and their followers) did recognize that Jesus was the Messiah and embraced the new, completed form of Judaism.

Shortly thereafter it was recognized that one could be a follower of Christ even if one did not ethnically join the Jewish people. Thus the apostles began to make many Gentile converts to the Christian faith. It is thus possible for a person to be a Jew religiously (because he has accepted Christianity, the completed form of the Jewish faith) but not be a Jew ethnically. This is the case with most Christians today.

It is this difference between being a Jew ethnically and religiously that lies behind Paul's statement in Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal."

Christians are those who Paul refers to as being inwardly (religiously) Jewish, while non-Christian Jews are those who he refers to as being outwardly (ethnically) Jewish. The former condition, he stresses, is the more important.

Unfortunately, over the course of time some Christians broke away from the Church that Jesus founded, and so a name was needed to distinguish this Church from the ones that broke off from it. Because all the breakaways were particular, local groups, it was decided to call the Church Jesus founded the "universal" (Greek, kataholos = "according to the whole") Church, and thus the name Catholic was applied to it.

That is why Jesus was a Jew and we are Catholics: Jesus came to complete the Jewish religion by creating a Church that would serve as its fulfillment and be open to people of all races, not just ethnic Jews. As Catholics, we are those who have accepted the fulfillment of the Jewish faith by joining the Church that Jesus founded.

Answered by Staff members of "Catholic Answers"

[AnnaM]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

I believe many people reject the dogmas of the Catholic Church because they're not of the truth. Jesus Christ said that all those who are of the truth hear His voice. Those who reject the dogmas are rejecting the truth of Jesus Christ.

[BlackSepulcher]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

[HRoberson]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

[mclees8]

I think people reject infallibility because they do not understand what it entails.

1. People tend to equate infallibility to impeccability. To be infallible is the ability to make an inerrant statement with regard to a specific topic within a specific context. To be impeccable is the ability to not commit any sins.

Because dictionaries are somehow a rarity these days people hear infallibility and think impeccability which usually leads to claims of idolatry because they see these as traits of divinity.

2. People also seem tone unable to understand the limits of infallibility. When we say the Church exercises infallibility that means ONLY we defining faith and morals. Apart from that the principle does not apply. However desperate opposers seeking to discredit the practice will often try to ciliate instances where the Church has errors as proof against infallibility in matters that are not related to faith and morals i.e. Galileo. 


Ignorance and misunderstanding sane ol same old.

I don't think impeccable is the word to use. Anyone who wants to know what is meant by infallible teaching only has to do is use the look up option in their word processor. The simple definition is teaching without error. It can also be called absolute truth. The question then is who alone is capable of teaching absolute truth. From whom does absolute truth come from. Since we know that man is not capable in and of himself to know or even fully understand absolute truth we must look to God Himself. There is only one from the Godhead that walked as a man. Jesus Christ. Jesus said my word is truth. Absolute truth without error because it proceeds out from God the Father.

The next question is, can one know absolute truth in interpretation being earthly. We know that all that proceeds from God is infallible and we have adopted the Bible as being without and incapable of error because of the Holy Spirit that inspired apostolic teaching. By the same power those who have been given the  Holy Spirit are able to discern absolute truth that originates from God. Yet there is one more question. Can one who is earthly be unique to infallible teaching so as to be exalted of men so that he alone sits on a throne above all others claiming he alone is capable of infallible teaching, whereby he sits as God upon the earth.

It is a trait of men to exalt men. To put them on a throne. It is a trait of men who desire to be exalted above all others.
This is all earthly. If one who is earthly claims to alone be capable of knowing Gods infallible word should we listen to him? The answer would be yes if one is able to discern it by Gods word. Is it hard to differ love from hate? Is it hard to by that love to understand compassion to serve and help others. Some things about faith and morals in are inborn while others must be taught, yet we for the most part are able to know when something is wicked.

Can one then who claims to sit on an exalted throne teach infallible truths and yet mislead and or misrepresent the church in other matters simply because of his exalted position. Absolutely. Can the devil pose as an angel of light. absolutely. So then whom can we trust to be without corruption. God only. Where do we know we can go to find absolute truth with out error? We must first go to the one source we know to be truth without error and  does not exalt self which  is Gods inerrant infallible Holy Word.

[BlackSepulcher]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

[AVZ]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

[HRoberson]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Well, you may think it's pea shooting, but it's true. The church began in the East, not Rome. It seems also that a theological point about the source of the Spirit isn't exactly a minor question. And yeah, that Papal supremacy? Seems like Rome doesn't consider it pea shooting.

Otherwise, they'd give it up in the interests of Christian unity.

[BlackSepulcher]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

[AVZ]

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

To some extend that would actually amount to a compliment.
But lets be fair here. It was not until the Catholic Church excommunicated the leaders and those who supported the teaching of the reformation, before Catholicism and Protestantism became disengaged.
As far as my knowledge goes it actually never was the objective to seek a split of the church by the reformers, but it was rather an attempt to address questionable habits practiced in the church.

Protestants are not really dissidents, they are more like people sent away in exile. They didn't really want to leave, they were told to.
Would the church have realized the amount of people that would actually followed the reformers...I am sure she would have thought twice.

But before you give yourself a pat on the shoulder...remember that in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, you are as much a dissident and a denomination, as Protestants are to you.
And with all due respect, the Protestant Church didn't break away from the Orthodox Church...she broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.
In fact, both Orthodox and Protestant agree on some very crucial doctrinal issues in the RCC.

One could actually say that to an extend the reasons why the reformation happened, are equal to the reasons why the RCC sought dispute with the Orthodox Church.
Or simply said: what goes around, comes around.

[mclees8]

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

To some extend that would actually amount to a compliment.
But lets be fair here. It was not until the Catholic Church excommunicated the leaders and those who supported the teaching of the reformation, before Catholicism and Protestantism became disengaged.
As far as my knowledge goes it actually never was the objective to seek a split of the church by the reformers, but it was rather an attempt to address questionable habits practiced in the church.

Protestants are not really dissidents, they are more like people sent away in exile. They didn't really want to leave, they were told to.
Would the church have realized the amount of people that would actually followed the reformers...I am sure she would have thought twice.

But before you give yourself a pat on the shoulder...remember that in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, you are as much a dissident and a denomination, as Protestants are to you.
And with all due respect, the Protestant Church didn't break away from the Orthodox Church...she broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.
In fact, both Orthodox and Protestant agree on some very crucial doctrinal issues in the RCC.

One could actually say that to an extend the reasons why the reformation happened, are equal to the reasons why the RCC sought dispute with the Orthodox Church.
Or simply said: what goes around, comes around.

Does any of this have anything to do with infallible dogma? Who truly speaks infallible dogma except for God. who has God given absolute truth that he alone speaks for Him upon the earth among men. If God speaks infallible truths through someone does that mean that that someone truly represents and speaks for God as a vicar or is he exalted of self assumed position ? 

Here is an absolute truth,  that the church is not found of the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant churches. Faith knows no boundaries but is established in the hearts of those who love Christ to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Where do I find that truth. I found it in Gods infallible word

To answer the original question no one can be a true believer in Christ and reject absolute truth that proceeds from God.  Jesus said I am the truth.  You can take that truth to the bank in heaven. I found that truth also in Gods infallible word.

So if one speaks infallible dogma then it first came from Gods infallible word.  I do not sit on any exalted throne of men or self assumed position,  yet I know who I am in Christ, and because His spirit is in me I can also know and speak these truths without error.

[AnnaM]

A person cannot reject the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church without also rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the infallible word of God, yes. It logically follows that the infallible word of God must have an infallible interpreter. I'm posting the following because I see it as relevant to the discussion:


Matthew 16:17-18-"And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ. One must belong to the one Church Christ established (the Catholic Church), for he who refuses to hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).



Glossary of Terms

Papacy - The office of a pope, the successor of St. Peter, which was founded by Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17) upon St. Peter as head of the Christian Church. The bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Peter. They hold the same primacy in the Christian Church that St. Peter held in the apostolic Church.

Magisterium – the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by a pope when proclaiming a dogma with the authority of the Papacy. Not every pronouncement of a true pope is a teaching of the Magisterium. A pope speaks magisterially when he meets certain conditions (as defined by Vatican I). Those who are faithful to the Magisterium are those who are faithful to what all the popes throughout history have dogmatically taught or set forth as what the Catholic Church has always held.

Ex Cathedra – Latin for " from the Chair." This refers to when a pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of St. Peter when he has fulfilled the conditions for an infallible pronouncement. It is heresy and mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra pronouncement of a pope, which is irreformable (unchangeable), since it constitutes the dogma that Christ revealed to the Church. Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."


Divine Revelation/Dogma – Jesus Christ's truth is the teaching of Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; their true content is set forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Dogma is unchangeable. When a pope defines a dogma, he doesn't make a dogma true from that point forward, but rather solemnly declares without erring that which has always been true since the death of the last apostle.
.
Dogmas are to be believed as the Church has "once declared them," without any recession from that meaning to a "deeper understanding."Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870,ex cathedra
:
"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."


Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic."

Pope St. Pius X,Editae Saepe (# 43), May 26, 1910: "It is a certain, well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy."


Schismatic – a baptized person who refuses communion with a true pope or with trueCatholics. Schismatics are almost always also heretics. Schismatics also incur automatic excommunication. Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

[HRoberson]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

Well no, the point is that the RC differs from Orthodoxy and wants to change history to pretend she's the "real" church.
"Similar" isn't "equal" to, so one of you is wrong. While I like various aspects of RC, your continued ignoring of reality is somewhat off-putting.
.

[chosenone]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

I believe many people reject the dogmas of the Catholic Church because they're not of the truth. Jesus Christ said that all those who are of the truth hear His voice. Those who reject the dogmas are rejecting the truth of Jesus Christ.

I reject them because most of them are error. The RC church is the only Christian denom that I would never go to for that reason. Nearly all of the core beliefs of the RC church are wrong and totally unbiblical. The longer I have been a  believer the more errors I see.
So by accepting the truth Of Jesus Christ, I have to reject RC dogma.

[mclees8]

A person cannot reject the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church without also rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the infallible word of God, yes. It logically follows that the infallible word of God must have an infallible interpreter. I'm posting the following because I see it as relevant to the discussion:


Matthew 16:17-18-"And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ. One must belong to the one Church Christ established (the Catholic Church), for he who refuses to hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).



Glossary of Terms

Papacy - The office of a pope, the successor of St. Peter, which was founded by Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17) upon St. Peter as head of the Christian Church. The bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Peter. They hold the same primacy in the Christian Church that St. Peter held in the apostolic Church.

Magisterium – the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by a pope when proclaiming a dogma with the authority of the Papacy. Not every pronouncement of a true pope is a teaching of the Magisterium. A pope speaks magisterially when he meets certain conditions (as defined by Vatican I). Those who are faithful to the Magisterium are those who are faithful to what all the popes throughout history have dogmatically taught or set forth as what the Catholic Church has always held.

Ex Cathedra – Latin for " from the Chair." This refers to when a pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of St. Peter when he has fulfilled the conditions for an infallible pronouncement. It is heresy and mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra pronouncement of a pope, which is irreformable (unchangeable), since it constitutes the dogma that Christ revealed to the Church. Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."


Divine Revelation/Dogma – Jesus Christ's truth is the teaching of Divine Revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; their true content is set forth by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Dogma is unchangeable. When a pope defines a dogma, he doesn't make a dogma true from that point forward, but rather solemnly declares without erring that which has always been true since the death of the last apostle.
.
Dogmas are to be believed as the Church has "once declared them," without any recession from that meaning to a "deeper understanding."Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870,ex cathedra
:
"Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."


Heretic – a baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church (ipso facto) without any declaration for rejecting an authoritative teaching of the Faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic."

Pope St. Pius X,Editae Saepe (# 43), May 26, 1910: "It is a certain, well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy."


Schismatic – a baptized person who refuses communion with a true pope or with trueCatholics. Schismatics are almost always also heretics. Schismatics also incur automatic excommunication. Quoted from VaticanCatholic.com

No disrespect but most here are very familiar with all the claims of the RCC

[BlackSepulcher]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

Well no, the point is that the RC differs from Orthodoxy and wants to change history to pretend she's the "real" church.
"Similar" isn't "equal" to, so one of you is wrong. While I like various aspects of RC, your continued ignoring of reality is somewhat off-putting.
.

Why can't you be bold enough to not stand by other churches to attack another? You're going to side with Protestants who also stand by filioque, and generally reject your communion's teachings as well.

I was simply telling of the fact that the RC and EO churches are fostered sisters, who are extremely Catholic and extremely NOT Protestant.
But just like the Jews, you all hate the West. Well, mind those who hate our churches collectively. Also keep in mind that your church does not predate the RCC, you all self-indulgently proclaim orthodoxy in the same manner you say the Church portrays hers.

[mclees8]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

Well no, the point is that the RC differs from Orthodoxy and wants to change history to pretend she's the "real" church.
"Similar" isn't "equal" to, so one of you is wrong. While I like various aspects of RC, your continued ignoring of reality is somewhat off-putting.
.

Why can't you be bold enough to not stand by other churches to attack another? You're going to side with Protestants who also stand by filioque, and generally reject your communion's teachings as well.

I was simply telling of the fact that the RC and EO churches are fostered sisters, who are extremely Catholic and extremely NOT Protestant.
But just like the Jews, you all hate the West. Well, mind those who hate our churches collectively. Also keep in mind that your church does not predate the RCC, you all self-indulgently proclaim orthodoxy in the same manner you say the Church portrays hers.

About the church preceding the RCC. I say it predated even the Orthodox church. What is Roman Catholic, but a phrase and a term that did not even exist when the church was born at Pentecost. What comprised the church then when there was no name given to the church. The word Christian was also a latter term given to it by men who were not even of the church. What then made the church the church? People who chose to believe in Christ for personal salvation who then came together collectively and corporately along with the apostles formed the church. No name given to it. 

What truly marked the church then was that even though the apostles were looked to as leaders they were as common as the rest. No self exaltation and calling attention to ones position. Both Peter and paul chastised those who wanted to bow and worship  them. This is in the book of acts. When one bowed to Peter did he not say rise up for I am a man just as you. 

Now in contrast what do we see in the Orthodox bishops. the last picture I saw was a man dressed as a king. What happened to the common humility we see in the apostles. In Like kind we see the pope and all the grand array of Catholic hierarchy surrounded in grandeur. But that is just the tip of the iceberg that separates the  church that Christ founded from the exalted parade of those who now dare say they sit in Peter seat. You say what does clothes have to do with it. It speaks a thousand words.

Jesus taught the apostles about Pharisees who loved the prominence and said do not be like them.

[Red Baker]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

[HRoberson]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

People reject infallible dogmas and theology because they are prejudiced against Catholicism. None of these rejections existed before the Protestant era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Protestants put it, it wouldn't have taken 1500 years for someone to deduce such.

So while every non-Catholic arrogantly enunciates their view of Christian dogmas and theology, thumping the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that those very interpretations were conjured by a prejudice against the Church to begin with. By doing so, t pretty much makes their arguments moot.

The dogmas of the Church are evident by the very ground she sits on- Catholicism is orthodox Christianity from the very center of the world OF Christianity. It began in Rome and Greece, not Germany or America, who are Protestants to tell Catholics what their own culture and tradition dictates? Protestants usurped Christianity and made it to their own appeal- that is precisely what the 16th century was all about, it was not about finding truth- it was about opposing the Church.
As such, their doctrines reflect just that: the denial of pretty much everything Catholic stems from the same prejudice that caused them to call the papacy the Antichrist.

Two observations

The church began in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece.
The Eastern Orthodox folks would disagree about Rome's orthodoxy.

That's just 'pea shooting'.

That fact is that Christianity's prominence is home to Rome and Greece, and Eastern Orthodoxy is extremely similar to Roman Catholicism once you take away primacy and filioque. They were also one church until the 11th century, which is probably the bigger point.

Yeah, now that would make the RCC the reformers of Orthodox Christianity now, wouldn't it?
Let me borrow from you for a second:

None of these rejections existed before the RCC era; no doubt if they were so plainly and evidently problematic as Roman Catholics put it, it wouldn't have taken 1100 years for someone to deduce such.

By the way, there were plenty of people who didn't really side with the RCC, but there was this nasty habit of the Church to quickly help these people on their way to the afterlife.

The point is that there was nobody who were so unCatholic as those in your denominations. Protestantism is completely alien to Catholic belief, you all are the true pioneers of orthodox dissidence.

Well no, the point is that the RC differs from Orthodoxy and wants to change history to pretend she's the "real" church.
"Similar" isn't "equal" to, so one of you is wrong. While I like various aspects of RC, your continued ignoring of reality is somewhat off-putting.
.

Why can't you be bold enough to not stand by other churches to attack another? You're going to side with Protestants who also stand by filioque, and generally reject your communion's teachings as well.

I was simply telling of the fact that the RC and EO churches are fostered sisters, who are extremely Catholic and extremely NOT Protestant.
But just like the Jews, you all hate the West. Well, mind those who hate our churches collectively. Also keep in mind that your church does not predate the RCC, you all self-indulgently proclaim orthodoxy in the same manner you say the Church portrays hers.

I had thought you were more observant than that. I'll take it then that your pea shooting comment was actually an emotional defense and that you really have no way to discuss the realities of your church's history.

[chosenone]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Yes, and they are wrong as well.

[AVZ]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This is quite strange to hear a Catholic say such a thing.

Catholics don't have to read the Bible, you don't have to discern anything for yourself, the Church will tell you exactly what to believe and what not, you employ a whole battery of saints in heaven to work for you to get your prayers endorsed and even the Eucharist is spoon fed...and then you call other people lazy?

[mclees8]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Yes, and they are wrong as well.

Rejecting infallible dogma is spiritual laziness ?  I think one needs to clarify that statement. Just who are you referring to who do believe in infallible dogma. who are the ones you are refering to as not?   Sounds like a personal problem to me. A baseless statement pulled out of a cloud denominational prejudice. 

[BlackSepulcher]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Yes, and they are wrong as well.

Rejecting infallible dogma is spiritual laziness ?  I think one needs to clarify that statement. Just who are you referring to who do believe in infallible dogma. who are the ones you are refering to as not?   Sounds like a personal problem to me. A baseless statement pulled out of a cloud denominational prejudice.

Infallibility can be observed and tested. I believe the seat of Peter is higher then other seats, even if a pope does not utilize the seat to full potential. This dogma is plainly seen in history, the seat has remained infallible for a very long time.

The dogmas of Mary are infallibly placed, nothing has been able to sway the Catholic beliefs surrounding the Mother of God. Nobody can truly reject these teachings in honesty: one can say that the seat of Peter does not warrant any given pope an explicit vicar, or that Mary is not necessary as a mediator, but one cannot really say these dogmas are false in their totality.

Other's rejection of the Church causes them to limit their perception on further truth.
I think that is what the OP is trying to portray, albeit it is a bit unreasonably harsh.

[Catholica]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This is quite strange to hear a Catholic say such a thing.

Catholics don't have to read the Bible, you don't have to discern anything for yourself, the Church will tell you exactly what to believe and what not, you employ a whole battery of saints in heaven to work for you to get your prayers endorsed and even the Eucharist is spoon fed...and then you call other people lazy?

Observing Catholic doctrine involves carrying one's cross.  Even Jesus had someone help him.  Protestants insist that Jesus carried the cross so they don't have to.  Jesus said, unless one takes up his cross daily and follow me, he is not worthy to be my disciple. 

Humbling oneself is the hardest task that a human person can ever undertake.  Accepting a whole battery of difficult truths?  Humble, and hard.  Submitting to authority?  Humble and hard.  Recognizing that we need each other and supernatural help from heaven to carry that cross?  Humble, and hard.

[Catholica]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Just because these sects themselves have elements of falsehood doesn't mean that they are 100% wrong on everything.

[Red Baker]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Just because these sects themselves have elements of falsehood doesn't mean that they are 100% wrong on everything.

Okay, maybe so, so what is point?  Catholics leaders believe that their doctrine are "the infallible dogma's of the truth" and all those outside of the "Mother" church are not of God, at least most of them believe that.  Just ask Anna!  She has made that statement loud and clear.  By the way, Catholica, it does not bother children of God who know whom they have believed in, and are trusting him and his righteousness for the right to enter into eternal life.

RB

[HRoberson]

Protestants insist that Jesus carried the cross so they don't have to. 

Heh?

[Catholica]

I believe many people reject Infallible Dogma/Theology because they are Spiritually Lazy. They want Jesus to save them in Spiritual Laziness. 

This same statement are made toward God's children by such sects as the Mormons, JW, those of the Islamic faith, SDA, etc.

RB

Just because these sects themselves have elements of falsehood doesn't mean that they are 100% wrong on everything.

Okay, maybe so, so what is point?  Catholics leaders believe that their doctrine are "the infallible dogma's of the truth" and all those outside of the "Mother" church are not of God, at least most of them believe that.  Just ask Anna!  She has made that statement loud and clear.  By the way, Catholica, it does not bother children of God who know whom they have believed in, and are trusting him and his righteousness for the right to enter into eternal life.

RB

Anna's sect has a title, "Sedevacantism".  In my view they present complicated matters in a simplistic way.  It is like Catholic fundamentalism, where things are simply black and white and not nuanced.  In the Catholic faith there is great nuance to many teachings.  Those teachings are nonetheless very specific.  Yet they are nuanced.

There is nothing in the Roman Catholic faith that says that people who are not Catholic are "not of God".  True Catholic teaching is that anyone who is baptized is connected to God in a mystical way.  And this is true of many, many who are not Catholic.

So it is only a simplistic shadow of Church teaching to say that those outside of the Church are not of God.  And this sect likes to proclaim that because then they can have a certain credo which to them demonstrates that the Catholic Church is in apostasy.  It's more of a rallying cry than an honest assessment of the fullness of Catholic teaching.  And rallying cries are easy for the masses to grab on to.  In fact, that is exactly how Arius propagated his Arian heresy.  He created a short little catchy song that people everywhere would sing, that promoted his basic heresy that Jesus was not God.

Check this out:

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/06/poisonous-songs-of-arius.html

[Catholica]

Protestants insist that Jesus carried the cross so they don't have to. 

Heh?

You don't agree? 

Carrying the cross is a metaphor for suffering through the difficulties of the spiritual life, eventually dying to oneself.  It is through that union of dying to oneself that we can hope to partake in the resurrection.  But not according to Protestants.

[HRoberson]

Protestants insist that Jesus carried the cross so they don't have to. 

Heh?

You don't agree? 

Carrying the cross is a metaphor for suffering through the difficulties of the spiritual life, eventually dying to oneself.  It is through that union of dying to oneself that we can hope to partake in the resurrection.  But not according to Protestants.

I think you are misinformed. Perhaps suffering from some cartoonish Protestant parody.